User perceptions of aspects related to the use of the activity chair: A descriptive cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known about the use and aspects impacting the use of the activity chair, which is a device supporting seated activities in everyday life. The aim was to understand (a) purpose of provision, (b) frequency and magnitude of use, (c) barriers impacting use, (d) instruction provided and (e) overall satisfaction with the activity chair. Method: This is a cross-sectional study involving 141 adult activity chair users. Data were collected through telephone interviews using a study-specific questionnaire with 21 items. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the quantitative results, and data-driven text analysis was conducted to analyse open-ended question responses. Results: Most respondents (87%) were provided the activity chair for kitchen work, 87% used the device on a daily basis, 75% used the device for additional activities beyond the provision purpose, 65% experienced barriers impacting use, instructions varied, with 28% receiving none and 16% had received activity-based training, 85% were satisfied with the activity chair. Conclusion: The activity chair appears to be regularly utilised and appreciated by respondents. However, improved device provision, particularly concerning activity-based training in relevant context and systematic follow up, may be required to reduce barriers impacting use. Findings emphasise the importance of learning from users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".